Obama/Palin '08

You heard it here first, folks. The good people of Harlem are voting for Obama because of his pro-life position, determination to stay in Iraq until the job is done, and decision to call Sarah Palin as his VP.

Now before anyone gets their fruit o' the looms in a bunch, I think this cuts both ways. They could just as easily have attributed Obama's policies to McCain and jumped a bunch of McCain supporters, only airing the silly responses and casting away the informed voters. So my point isn't "look how stupid Obama voters are" nearly so much as it is "look how stupid the American public can be" and "oh my gosh...are these people REALLY allowed to vote?"

(HT: Reepicheep)

Obama: President

This post originally spoke out against Obama as a candidate due to his pro-abortion stance. My views have not changed. However, the circumstances have. Obama is now the President-elect. Therefore I've removed this post since it can no longer have the intended effect of undermining his support as a candidate.

In its place I want to remind all confessors of Jesus Christ, regardless of how you cast your vote, that daily the merciless dismemberment, burning, and stabbing of the innocent unborn continues. In very few cases does it have anything to do with rape, or endangerment of the mother's life. It is most often simply a form of birth control - the removal of an inconvenience. Let us pray that our new president will break his campaign promises to proliferate this injustice. Let us pray that our society will come to see the horrific nature of this crime. Let us pray that we as a church on earth cannot be accused by future generations of being silent while this took place.

It is no more true under Obama than it would have been under McCain: God is sovereign and our hope and trust can only be in Him.

Lord, have mercy.

Five Smooth Stones: The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

Although not a post in my baptism series, this is meant to supplement it. I want to address, as briefly as possible, the historical evidence for infant baptism. It is often argued that the practice was a late development. Some even argue that there is no example of it until the late fourth century. My objective in this article is to demonstrate by citing the church fathers that this is not correct. I cite five Fathers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries here that show the evidence that we currently have. If other historical evidence comes to my attention, I'll write a subsequent post.

Ireneaus
Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor (probably Smyrna, modern Izmir) around 130 to Christian parents and is believed to have been the disciple of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was in turn the disciple of the apostle John (author of the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and Revelation). His teacher, then, was taught by an apostle. He spent much of his ministry in Lyon, France (a missionary church of Polycarp) as the Bishop. He died a martyr around 200. This means most, if not all, of his ministry and writing was within 100 years of the death of John. In Against Heresies 2.22.4, he writes, "For [Christ] came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Because the Fathers did not admit a division between baptism and salvation, this is a clear statement of infant baptism in the church. Irenaeus could not have included infants in that list if they were not being baptised by the church. Here we have a Bishop in the church, within 100 years (late 2nd century) of the death of John, trained in Asia Minor by Polycarp disciple of John, remembered as the great heresy slayer, serving in France, making reference to the baptism of infants as normative in the church. It is difficult to see how he might favor infant baptism if the church he oversaw was planted by Polycarp, the disciple of John, unless infant baptism is apostolic.

Tertullian
Tertullian was born in Carthage (or at least the province of) around 145 or 155 to pagan parents. He was trained in Rome and is often referred to (in modern writings) as a lawyer, which may have been his line of work. He converted around 185. His writings certainly carry a wonderful logical sense of themselves and sound like the work of a lawyer's mind. He gave the church the word "Trinity" as well as many wonderful writings for which we are thankful. His ministry (as an elder - he doesn't seem to have ever served as a Bishop) in Carthage was from about 190 to 200. Again, this puts his writings about 100 years after the death of John and the end of the apostolic age. Tertullian's support for our view comes in a round about way. We disagree with his argument, but in making it, he reveals the normative practice in his day and time. Tertullian argues in On Baptism Chapter 18 that baptism should be delayed (not only for children, but for anyone unmarried). He makes reference to the practice of parents speaking for their children in baptism (a clear indication of the very young age of the child and the child's inability to confess Christ), and argues against it. He recognizes that they appeal to Christ's teaching, "Let the little ones come unto me and forbid them not." His argument, however, is not based upon the Baptist objection, but upon the view that once a person is baptized, he or she may no longer sin without putting themselves in grave spiritual peril. He does not, however, make any attempt to argue that the practice is not biblical, apostolic, or orthodox. Nor does he say those baptized as infants should be rebaptized, or that their infant baptism isn't true baptism. He offers his point of view as a pastoral suggestion only. The value in his writing, then, is in witnessing to the apparently acknowledged practice of infant baptism in Carthage at the end of the 2nd century.

Origen
Born to Christian parents around 185 in or around Alexandria, Egypt, Origen was a lay person in the church known among other things for his role as a teacher of new converts (he led the catechetical school at Alexandria, famous throughout the Church at the time). His father was martyred when Origen was about 17 years old. His works span the period of the first half of the third century and represent to some degree the events and views of Alexandrian Christianity in the early third century. He says in his Homily on Leviticus, 8.3, "In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants." In his Commentaries on Romans, 5:9, he argues that this "usage" came from the apostles. "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." Origen may be mistaken. But no one takes him to task until after the Reformation. Who is likely to have a better take on what was and was not apostolic? Origen (a teacher in the church born about 90 years after the apostolic period to Christian parents), or an Anabaptist of the 16th century?

The Apostolic Tradition
This writing of the early church is thought to have been composed by Hippolytus of Rome who died about 235. This makes its writing roughly contemporary with Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Hippolytus is believed by most to have been Bishop of Portus very near Rome. The Apostolic Tradition has been tentatively dated to around 215. In this work, chapter 21.4, Hippolytus teaches, "The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family." Here is one more example from the period of a Bishop teaching the baptism of children too young to answer for themselves. This time in Rome. Notice also that the language of baptism here is household, further reinforcing our argument on that point.

Cyprian
Cyprian was born in 200 and died in 258, placing his testimony in the same period, but slightly later than the above witnesses. He was a disciple of Tertullian and Bishop of Carthage in North Africa. With regard to the subject of infant baptism, Cyprian argues (on behalf of 66 presbyters meeting in council) in Epistle LVIII, "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently." Cyprian goes on to argue that there is no reason to delay baptism to the eighth day. Instead, infants may be baptized upon birth. He argues instead that they should be baptized, teaching in the same letter, "how much more, then, should an infant not be held back". Cyprian accepts the principle of baptism as the NC circumcision, but just as the sign changed from circumcision (bloody) to baptism (unbloody), so the requirement that it be applied on the eighth day is now changed to allow for immediate application. Again, it should be pointed out, that Fidus (to whom the letter is addressed) is taking issue with the normative practice of the church of baptizing infants. He does not object to their baptism, but only to baptizing them "early". He thinks they should wait to the 8th day. He is appealing to the rite of circumcision as his motivation, and the council does not take issue with this, but argues that his application is too legalistic. This discussion takes place in the context of the early 3rd century church (again, about 120 years after the apostles). And the view presented is not one man's, but that of an entire council of presbyters in North Africa!

Conclusion
The testimony of these five demonstrates that in the churches 100-150 years after the apostolic period of the church, the baptism of infants was practiced in Asia Minor, France, Egypt, Carthage, and Rome. Given the geographic scope of these writings, the prominence (even in their own day) of these men and their writings, and the indication in each that infant baptism was not unorthodox or heretical, but the normative practice of their churches, I return to the question of my previous post. Does it seem probable that such testimony would exist if infant baptism were contrary to the clear teaching of the apostles? Certainly these men are not infallible, nor were their churches. And there are other things these men taught that we call into question. But on something as fundamental as who should receive baptism, does it seem likely they would (especially in the case of Irenaeus who is only once removed from the apostle John himself) not only allow but embrace such an inappropriate teaching? Two of these men were born into Christian homes (Irenaeus, c.130 and Origen, c.185). They advocate infant baptism, and no record exists of an "adult" baptism for either, making their own baptism as infants a likelihood. Allowing ourselves a bit of license on this account, Irenaeus' baptism in 130 as an infant, then, would have been performed by someone such as Polycarp, discipled by an apostle. We cannot argue this for certain, but it is not at all unreasonable given the evidence before us. And if these men did break with the teaching of the apostles, how do we explain the widespread nature of their break? Heresy has typically started in a local place and spread, but this practice has no such local beginnings. Indeed, since these earliest writings claim apostolic origin for their authority, no one can point to the time when infant baptism began in the church. And where are the writings against the practice? No one speaks up to say, "This isn't the tradition we received!" This argument is compounded by the fact that several of the men above are noted for their defense of the faith and the tradition handed down to them. They are recognized by all Christian scholars today as great men of the church who faithfully played their part in transmitting the faith to the next generation and fighting any heresy or aberration that might try to creep in. Is it likely such men, spread across the Roman empire, quietly introduced a new idea and no one spoke up?

My purpose has not been to establish the case for infant baptism beyond all doubt according to history. I merely intend to demonstrate that the evidence for such as an apostolic practice is not as scant as the credobaptist would have you believe. Their own requirement that only confessors be baptized is not nearly as well supported. Pointing to the example of such is insufficient for them. We teach the baptism of confessors as well. They are seeking to deny infant baptism, but there is no such text in all of the early fathers that teaches us to deny baptism to our infants. They seek to establish that only confessors can be baptized, but there is no such text that teaches this (only examples of confessors being baptized, which I've just admitted we agree with). Occasionally a Father, such as Tertullian, will counsel postponement, but then for reasons that the Baptist himself cannot agree with, demonstrating that he did not have their view in mind. Particularly lacking is any instruction to rebaptize those who were baptized as infants. Nor is there a single example of a child coming of age and then being baptized. The Baptist is left without any evidence for his view, then, for most of the 1500 years leading up to the Reformation. This should put the 100 year gap between the Apostles and any teaching on infant baptism into perspective.

*My title is a sort of tongue in cheek reference to my use of these five fathers to "slay" the Baptist argument that infant baptism is without early attestation. It's really just meant for fun. I hope none will take offense.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Six: Some Objections)

My goal in this post is not to present an exhaustive list of Baptist objections. I'm not even sure these are their best objections. But as a Baptist myself at one time, these were the objections that kept me from embracing covenantal infant baptism. They were the objections I most commonly heard and employed. Although some parts of my posts have gotten a little technical, and although much of the commentary below the posts has been very technical, I'm trying to write for the average lay person for the most part. I'll try to simplify the argument in the summary in my final post. Here, then, are the objections most commonly employed.

First, if we are supposed to baptize infants, why don't we see any infant baptisms in the Bible?

If we concede that baptism has replaced circumcision, we do see infants receiving the sign in the Bible. If, however, we restrict ourselves to the NT, we need to consider the context. Acts is not concerned with answering the question of whether or not infants should receive the sign. Instead it is recording the spread of the Kingdom through the gospel. It records adult conversions and the baptisms that follow. This is what we would expect from such a narrative. This objection is an argument from silence and is therefore not effective. I could with equal force ask why we don't see any children being baptized when they come of age. Or why we aren't told of any women participating in the Lord's Supper. It's also important to remember that children were included in the covenant in the OT and would be assumed to be members of the NC unless they were instructed otherwise. So the burden is not on the paedobaptist to prove that children were baptized, but on the Baptist, to prove that they were not, having for some reason been excluded.

It should also be noted that of the (only) 12 recorded baptism events in the NT after (but including) Pentecost, 4 are certainly household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian Jailer, and Stephanus), and one other appears to have been (Crispus). It is no more legitimate for Baptists to insist that children were absent or not included in these baptisms than it is for Presbyterians to insist that they were. We simply cannot know the ages of those present based upon these records. But what we do see is that the text emphasizes that the baptism was a household baptism. This means the entire household. The Baptist argues that if infants were present, they would have been excluded. But the text does not say this. And the argument assumes the very point in question. In the case of the Philippian Jailer, it says he was baptized at once, "he and all his family." There is no attempt to assure us that infants were excluded. And before we laugh and say there was no need for Luke (the author of Acts) to record that for us, keep in mind: Infants were included in this rite of covenant membership for 1700 years. Their part would have to be assumed unless some instruction had been given otherwise. It is not silly to assume they were there and they participated. It is contrary to the biblical pattern to assume that they weren't. And yet their exclusion is not clarified by Luke.

This household language is also incredibly reminiscent of the OC. The language of covenant was "household" language. Genesis 17 speaks of circumcision being applied to all the males in his house. Dueteronomy 6 commands parents to instruct their children (because they are covenant children!). Paul issues instructions patterned on this same assumption (see Ephesians 6:1-4, for example, where Paul repeats the 5th commandment, with its promise, to gentile children). This is an identical pattern with regard to the sphere of the covenant. It is household in both cases.

Second, we cannot baptize infants since they are not regenerate (or saved, or have not confessed faith, etc). We don't know if they will grow up to be Christians.

It has been my contention throughout this series that baptism is not a sign given to regenerate people. We cannot know who is regenerate and who is not. We may be able to make a reasonable guess, but we cannot know for certain. Instead, the sign has always been commanded to a confessing people and their children. Let me put it this way. Abraham was saved by faith. Then the sign of God's promises to Abraham was given. This sign, which Gen 17 says is the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, is then commanded for his 8 day old boys. So even though salvation was already by faith, the sign of membership in this community of faith was commanded for those that could not express faith. If God worked this way in the OC, why can he not work this way in the NC? More to the point: God commanded this forever in Gen 17. This has never been repealed. "Forever" has never been clarified to mean: "for a little while." We have never been told our children are now excluded! I think this is crucial. God issued an explicit command forever and has never said children are now out. This idea is inferred by the Baptists from the lack of infant baptism examples in the NT. Should we ignore a command of God based upon an inference?

Furthermore, I will level the same charge at the Baptists: How can you baptize someone when they may not prove to be regenerate? Do you see how that works? This objection of the Baptists cuts both ways. Just because an adult can claim to have faith doesn't mean they won't turn out to be faithless (and unfortunately they sometimes do). Just because an infant can't confess doesn't mean they will turn out to be faithless. In neither case can we know. And praise be to God, he has not given us the task of discerning it. Even in the case of adult baptism, we give the sign to those that make a confession of faith with Christ as its object according to Scripture. We do not wait until we can prove their regenerate status (a task that is impossible for man).

Third, faith must precede baptism by NT example.

This is actually not much different from the first objection. And my answer will include a portion of my answer to the second. The NT examples do not exhaust everything there is to be said about baptism. This is clear from the fact that we also learn about baptism from non-narrative passages. Paul teaches about it in Romans 6 and Colossians 2, for example. What we learn from him there is more than we knew from just the 12 events recorded. Additionally, Isaac received the sign prior to faith. There can be no objection that salvation was somehow different under the OC. It certainly was not. When Paul says Abraham was saved by faith in Galatians 3:1-6, his point is that this is how God has always worked in salvation. So if faith did not have to precede the OC sign, why does it need to proceed the NC sign? Some biblical evidence must be provided that our children are not members of the covenant, or that they should now be excluded, otherwise the "forever" quality of the command in Genesis 17 compels us to give them the sign.

This objection is often brought up not only by general NT example, but specifically by Peter's instruction in Acts 2: "Repent and be baptized." Repentance (so the argument goes) precedes baptism. I believe this argument ignores the immediate context. Peter's audience was an adult audience. He was calling them to repentance. In such cases, faith does precede baptism. So this instruction is in no way contrary to what we would expect or teach ourselves in obedience to the Scripture. It is also, by the way, the pattern required in the OC for adult converts. Exodus 12:43-49 teaches that adults converting to faith in God must receive the sign. Their faith precedes their receipt of the sign. But this requirement is not extended to the children of those who are covenant members. In fact, notice that once this gentile has expressed his faith and received the sign, so does the rest of his household. This pattern is quite familiar to those who have read of the household conversions in Acts. The head converts and receives the sign, followed immediately by the application of the sign to his household.

Fourth, infant baptism is a late doctrine not found in the early church. Therefore it must be a corruption that snuck in after the apostles.

"Late" is such a tricky word. Is 100 years after the disciples too late? Now be careful. I didn't say this is when the practice started. This is the earliest attestation. There is no reason to believe it didn't start with the apostles. Baptists often point to these early sources and say this is when it started. That would be like pointing to the earliest reference to "Trinity" (Tertullian, late 2nd, early 3rd century) and saying this is when Trinitarianism started. I'm going to do a separate post in the coming days dedicated just to the historical evidence for infant baptism. But this is good stuff. We not only have evidence that it occurred. We have the testimony of the Fathers from this very period of the early church that they believed it was connected to circumcision. Did you catch that? The view of Presbyterians that circumcision is the precursor to baptism isn't a new idea. The New Covenant theologians might want you to think it only came along with the advent of Covenant Theology in the 17th century. But it turns out that we have evidence that the church linked baptism and circumcision logically at least as far back as the early 3rd century (200 to 250). That's 1800 years! And lest you are left thinking 3rd century sounds late: It's just over 100 years after the last apostle died! It's at or perhaps less than 200 years after Christ was crucified. And as far back as 200 or thereabouts we have writings from the Fathers that indicate it was being practiced as the normal practice all over the Christian world. What is more feasible: The Presbyterian argument that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles and we don't have any writings on it until 100 years after they died? OR the Baptist argument that within 100 years of the last apostle a great mistake has been made and adopted throughout the Christian world in which they baptize their infants contrary to the apostles, and we don't have so much as a letter or a book from anyone at the time decrying this great mistake?

History alone can't prove paedobaptism. But let's be very careful about believing the argument that history doesn't support infant baptism. Of the two options, history is far kinder to the view of covenantal infant baptism. It not only has early support, it is the practice of the vast majority of the church throughout church history. So if we look back over 2000 years of church history, we find that most Christians practiced infant baptism throughout this period. Again, I'll post a survey of some of the most significant historical references in the very near future.

(Edit: The post is up. You can read it here.)

Finally, the theological system of Covenantal Theology is wrong. Since this is the system upon which the doctrine of infant baptism is based, and since it is not the system taught in Scripture, the paedobaptist is wrong.

Another way to say this is: If we can prove that CT isn't true, then we have undermined the entire Presbyterian argument for infant baptism. I'm willing to concede this point for the sake of argument. I disagree, however, that CT is not biblical. Anyone making such an argument has some burden to demonstrate how and where the system fails to account for some portion of Scripture. And the responsible thing is to offer some better system in return. Those who raise this objection attempt to do both. The system they offer is usually referred to as New Covenant Theology. I won't offer a critique of this system here. We've discussed this at length in the comments under a previous post. My friend, Jay Bennett, is also critiquing this view as published by Dr. Stephen Wellum. This writing is widely recognized by Baptists as the best argument they have yet put forward. I look forward to Jay's unfolding response.

In short, however, I will offer this critique. The fundamental argument of NCT is that the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31 has been completely fulfilled, and in so doing, has completely abrogated (undone) all previous covenants. They also point to Hebrews 8 to support this view. This argument must be addressed (and has been, for example here). But it is not proving to be a difficult argument. The CT view is more nuanced and takes into account the broader testimony of Scripture. The NCT view is too optimistic about our current condition, making it difficult to explain our future hope if the NC in which it was promised has already been perfectly fulfilled. I'd encourage you to read Wellum, then read Jay.

The bottom line: If you are already a convinced CT, infant baptism is the only consistent position you can hold. If you deny infant baptism, you need to go back and reconsider your understanding and commitment to CT. Your only basis for denying infant baptism is a fundamental disagreement with the basic premise of CT: There is one eternal covenant of which the biblical covenants are unfolding revelations (Abraham, Moses, David, and New). My point in this paragraph isn't to draw lines and try to push anyone into or out of a particular group or label. But if you attend a Presbyterian church and willingly embrace covenant theology, but reject infant baptism, I'm sounding a little alarm for you. You need to rethink some things.

In the final post I will summarize my argument with proof texts (at least that's the plan!).

A Response to Wellum

Under a post or two below, Blake White has interacted with my baptism series, suggesting I read Dr Stephen Wellum's "Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants". This has been recommended several times as the most effective critique of the covenantal infant baptism argument. I'm not in a position right now to offer a response to Wellum, but I would like to point you to a critique being published by my close friend, Jay Bennett. Jay has accepted a call to minister in the PCA in the St. Louis area and will be moving up there in the coming months. Without having read all of it (he's still getting to the meat of Wellum's argument), I am confident Jay's answer will be quite devastating to the Baptist critique of our view. Wellum's arguments are not new, but are only the usual arguments, well-crafted. I think you'll find Jay's style and substance quite persuasive.

As for my baptism series: I haven't forgotten about it. I'm working on the next post and hope to be done soon. I took the weekend off and haven't had a moment to get back to it yet. Part of it is a historical argument and I want to get my ducks in a row before publishing it. It's easier to do historical research poorly than just about anything else, and often with more devastating effects. Look for something in the next day or so.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Five: The Sign Transformed)

This final installment will conclude my argument proper. All that is left is to demonstrate that circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant. Christ instead has commanded baptism as the sign of membership in the covenant. This final post will be considerably shorter for this reason: As I will argue, I don't think Baptists disagree with this point (although they might protest a bit).

I think we all agree that there is a sign of membership, and that this sign is baptism. If you are a Baptist and you disagree, speak up! I think there may be some that will argue about this, but in the end they implicitly agree. Why do I say that? Because every Baptist church of which I have ever been a member or of which I have ever heard requires baptism in order to be admitted as a member. Since they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, it is perfectly consistent to argue that they see this as a sign of entrance and membership into the covenant community. This is further established by the argument that they make with regard to Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8. Their argument is that we cannot give baptism to infants because infants are no longer members of the covenant community. This argument assumes that baptism is the sign of covenant membership. Otherwise it is hard to see what support Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 has to offer the Baptist argument. And since we both agree that Baptism is now the sign of covenant membership, I'm not compelled to make an extended defense of the point in this post.

There is a finer point that will come up, however. Since we (and here I mean Presbyterians) believe that it is a sign of covenant membership, and since we believe (as do the Baptists) that circumcision was the OC sign of membership, we Presbyterians believe it is legitimate to take the principles found in the narrative surrounding baptism and bring those principles forward to the NT. This is legitimized by a single little word in the Hebrew of Genesis 17: Olam. Forever. While the outward form of the sign has changed, the thing signified has not. The covenant established with Abraham is an eternal covenant. It has Christ as its head (the one through whom the promises of the covenant are fulfilled). As such, the sign is commanded forever. So although that outward form changed, the principles underlying it did not. It is for our children. It is forever. It is about God's faithfulness to his promises, not about being our public profession of faith.

(On a side note, wouldn't circumcision be an odd sign to use for a public profession?)

Baptists, who, as I've demonstrated above, do see baptism as a sign of membership in the people of God, and do believe that circumcision was this sign in the OT, often do not wish to draw a parallel between the two signs. This is typically for two reasons. First, they do not believe that the church is Israel. They believe there are two people of God in redemptive history. Circumcision was the sign for Israel. Baptism is the sign for the church. If they were correct about God having two people, this might be a formidable argument. However, as we have seen, the division of the one people of God is a terrible mistake of exegesis and cannot be sustained. In fact, fewer and fewer dispensationalists (the group that started this theory) are even trying to argue for the separation anymore. They have incrementally withdrawn from this position over the past 50 years.

An alternative reason for softening or disregarding any parallels is a view called New Covenant Theology. This view uses Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 in order to make the argument that the one people of God is now entirely composed of regenerate people. These passages speak of a New Covenant that God will make with his people. Under this New Covenant the people will no longer be covenant breakers. They will no longer need to teach one another to know God because they will all know God. Hebrews 8 says that this New Covenant has superceded the Old Covenant, and is better than the OC. For this reason, these Baptists will argue that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 has been completely fulfilled. The one people of God is now only the regenerate. And since the composition has changed, commands with regard to the circumcision of infants are no longer valid. (I've yet to get any answer to the question of what God meant in Gen 17 when he said your infants are to receive the sign "forever").

There are several problems with this view. First, the prophecies of Jeremiah have only been partially fulfilled. Certainly the New Covenant has been inaugurated by Christ (Luke 22:20). This has made certain aspects of the NC a present reality. But it has not changed the makeup of the community, which is still a visible community composed of regenerate and unregenerate people, as I've argued from Scripture (Matthew 13, 1 John 2:19). While those espousing the NC view often accuse us of an under-realized eschatology (in other words, failing to recognize that the promises are ours now), Scripture and experience tell us that theirs is in fact an over-realized eschatology (they claim too much for themselves right now). We instead find that the promises of Jeremiah are finally fulfilled in Rev 20-22. As for Hebrews 8, most of the most widely read and highly appreciated commentaries are in agreement: The OC is passing away, but is not yet deceased.*

The second problem with this view is that it makes it impossible to appropriately administer baptism. Since baptism is a sign given to the covenant community, and since (by their view) this community is only made up of the regenerate, and since we cannot know who is regenerate, then how can the sign be applied to anyone? Baptism is a visible sign. It must be applied to a visible community. But the New Covenant view of the community is that it is invisible. And here's the kicker: So they must apply the sign to the visible community. They argue that the sign is only for the invisible community, but are forced to apply it to the visible. You can feel their tension when they speak of trying to overcome this. They speak of doing their best to make sure the person is regenerate. While admirable in its own way, this only highlights the problem. Despite their best efforts, they admittedly will make mistakes. And for those that have been in the Baptist church, you will probably recognize how rampant these mistakes can be. Here is an article just written by a Baptist pointing to the problem of rebaptism in their churches, just as an example. If the standard for baptism is regeneration, no Baptist should baptize anyone with a clear conscience. And their attempts to separate the weeds from the wheat seem contrary to Christ's instruction in Matthew 13 (a parable about the kingdom, which is the church). The closest the NT comes to giving us license to do this is only after they are members, and then we call it discipline. Even this, however, is not based upon regenerate or unregenerate status. Otherwise, not knowing their status, we could never exercise discipline! Instead it is based upon covenant keeping and covenant breaking.

Additionally, Paul connects the concepts of circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. He says the Christians at Colossae had been circumcised. But this circumcision was not physical, it was spiritual. It was the circumcision of the heart spoken of in the OT. But when? When had this happened? Paul says in vs 12 it happened when they were buried with Christ in baptism. Paul says they were circumcised by baptism. This links the two signs in a significant way. It equates them as to their meaning. True circumcision in the OT was circumcision of the heart. But this is no sign (since it is invisible!). The sign of such was given to the visible community. Being buried with Christ in baptism (the spiritual reality of it) is no sign. It's the invisible reality that must be signified. But we give this visible sign itself to the visible community. Just as the two (circumcision and baptism) are spiritually the same, they are connected in their physical application as well.

So it appears that the argument isn't really about whether or not baptism replaced circumcision. Both sides agree that both are signs of covenant membership, and Paul connects the two logically in Colossians. So in some sense it certainly did. The argument is really only about who should receive this sign. I have tried to establish in my previous posts that children were once commanded by God to receive it forever, and that nothing has since transpired to rescind that order. Therefore our children are to receive the sign, and that sign is baptism.

As I said, this concludes my argument proper. In my next post I will line up some of the most common Baptist arguments and offer a response. In my conclusion I will offer the entire argument summarized in a single paragraph with Scripture proofs as applied in these posts.

* Harold Attridge (Hermeneia); Philip Hughes (Eerdmans); Paul Ellingworth (New International Greek Testament Commentary) to name but a few.

Now this is fun!

In honor of their 10th anniversary, Google has posted their 2001 index. In other words, you can go here and enter your search string. The results are the ones you would see in 2001. You can then click on a link next to each result and actually pull the page up. It's a bit buggy, but has produced some fun results for me. I started seminary at DTS in 2001. So I checked it out, and sure enough...there's the old web page. Anyway...great break from work or study. Check it out!

(HT: JT at Between Two Worlds)